The legal debate surrounding carbon capture technology is playing out on the stage of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held oral arguments on November 20, 2024, over contested pipeline ordinances established by two Iowa counties—Shelby and Story. These counties are standing up against Summit Carbon Solutions, the company behind the proposed 2,000-mile carbon sequestration pipeline, seeking to protect their residents through local governance.
At the heart of this legal tussle is the clash between local and federal regulatory powers. Shelby and Story counties enacted ordinances stipulating the distance hazardous pipelines must maintain from residences, as well as protocols for emergency responses should there be ruptures. Summit Carbon Solutions, originating from Iowa, filed suit against the counties back in 2022, asserting these local regulations conflict with the federal Pipeline Safety Act, which it argues preempts local ordinances.
A federal judge previously sided with Summit, prompting the counties to take their case to the appellate court. The dilemma posed by this dispute is whether local authorities can impose their safety standards concerning the location of dangerous pipelines when federal laws already govern safety concerns.
During the arguments, Sherri Webb, representing Shelby County, expressed her community's devotion to safeguarding its land and people’s wellbeing. "Why couldn’t they have done another route?" she asked, highlighting her worries about potential erosion effects on her family land—a sentiment echoed by many fearing the environmental repercussions of the large pipeline's proposed path.
Jason Craig, the attorney advocating for the counties, raised pointed arguments about the nature of safety standards under the Pipeline Safety Act. He emphasized, "Local land use regulations, zoning regulations, are not preempted safety standards under the Pipeline Safety Act." Judge Duane Benton probed Craig's assertion, reminding him of the depth of safety concerns noted within the Shelby County ordinance. Craig stood firm, acknowledging safety as one component of zoning but distinguishing it from the federal oversight on safety standards related to pipeline design and construction.
On the flip side, Ryan Koopmans, representing Summit, contended the ordinances imposed by the counties were fundamentally intertwined with safety and should obviously fall under federal preemption. Reflecting on the legalities involved, he stated, "The setback requirements and other provisions are clearly safety standards." He argues the Pipeline Safety Act clearly delineates the Department of Transportation's jurisdiction, excluding it from managing the location or design of pipelines.
Judge Jane Kelly engaged with the crux of the argument, questioning whether there was any material difference between state-designated safety standards and the broader, safety-oriented concerns derived from local ordinances. She stated, "It’s difficult to think of a local ordinance, like zoning, without safety baked inside it." Coopmans stressed there seemed to be no other justification for the county's mandate of a 1,000-foot setback, other than safety.
Central to the debate is the precedent set by the Iowa Supreme Court ruling, Goodell v. Humboldt County, which validated state authority over county regulations. This brings weight to the argument made by Craig against the broad assumptions of county authority over local regulations. Judge Benton concurred, emphasizing the statutory power endowed to the Iowa Utilities Board over pipeline routing and locations.
Craig countered this by noting the uniqueness of the case, asserting there are additional requirements being imposed rather than direct conflict with state statutes. Meanwhile, Koopmans illustrated how Summit was required to demonstrate compliance with county ordinances to the Iowa Utilities Commission during its permit application process, arguing the complication lies within the specifics of adherence.
Judge Kelley sought clarification on whether Summit needed to prove its compliance with the counties’ ordinances before proceeding. Craig reinforced the necessity of adherence, yet Koopmans pointed out Summit had shown how they would navigate local land use, not necessarily how they comply with every county ordinance.
With the judges indicating they would render their decision "in due course," the stakes are high for both sides. Summit is not only awaiting the appellate court's decision but also contending with another lawsuit against landowners, which saw hearings just last month, and recently filed suit against Bremer County over similar local ordinances. This plays out as Summit looks to secure permits from North Dakota and South Dakota—compliance is necessary before any construction can commence.
Aaron Sanderford of the Nebraska Examiner reported these details, illustrating the intricacies and stakes involved as both local counties attempt to uphold their authority against potential threats posed by expansive federal regulations.
This entire case signifies larger themes of governance, safety standards, and environmental stewardship. The final ruling from the court could set precedence, impacting not only the counties involved but possibly redefining how local versus federal jurisdiction plays out across various regulatory landscapes.
